View PDF - United Kingdom Parliament

93 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 26 OCTOBER 2009 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 94
[Lords]
[Lords]
the CFP a couple of times. He refers to its shortcomings,
yet I understand that he is supportive of it. What does
he want to do to limit its effects on fishermen? Would he
support an extension of national control up to 199 miles,
thereby rendering the CFP effectively useless? What is
his approach to tackling the problems and injustices of
the CFP, or does he just complain about it and leave it
exactly as it is?
Mr. Doran rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon.
Gentleman will resist the temptation to lead us into a
full-scale debate on the CFP, which would take us very
much off-centre as regards this group of amendments.
Mr. Doran: I appreciate your point, Mr. Deputy
Speaker, but I would just point out that the hon. Member
for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr. MacNeil) has only just
arrived in the debate and that I did not say anything
suggesting that I supported the CFP, which has failed
the British industry. The Government, now with the
support of the Opposition, are well on the way to
dealing with the issues. Negotiations in Europe are the
way forward.
In speaking in support of amendment 41, I want
generally to try to ensure that the interests of the fishing
industry are properly taken account of. My amendment
links the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 with the Bill
to underline the fact that the industry already has its
own licensing system. There is a huge amount of
bureaucracy. I get the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation
diary every year, and the first few hundred pages are
taken up with the rules—all the legislation—that the
fishing industry has to comply with. It is a very complex
area, and one that I would have been reluctant to tackle
in my own days as a legal practitioner. The industry has
its own licensing system, it is heavily policed and controlled,
and it is subject not only to UK legislation but to
EU directives under the CFP.
Clause 66 looks as though it will impose another
layer of licensing on top of that which already exists. I
do not know whether it is possible to find some
compatibility with the 1967 Act, or how the problem
could be mitigated beyond excluding the fishing industry
in the way that I and others have suggested. For centuries,
fishing has been seen as an essential public right. Now
that the industry is so heavily policed and controlled
under our own UK licensing regime and European law,
there is a heavy weight of regulation, and in these
difficult times it does not need any more. The industry
is important to the economy, particularly to rural
communities around the country where fishing and fish
processing are vital to the stability of the community. It
needs more certainty, not less, and that it is what it is
looking for.
I hope that the Minister, and those of my colleagues
who are on the other side of this argument, will understand
that, certainly in Scotland, where my main experience
lies, there has been a huge shift in the attitude of the
fishing industry towards more sustainable methods of
fishing and an industry-wide recognition that protecting
the environment is crucial to the maintenance of fish
stocks. There is strong support from the industry for the
Bill and for the equivalent legislation that will be produced
in the Scottish Parliament. The industry wants to be
part of the process that protects the marine environment,
which will be strengthened by the Bill. I hope that the
Minister can spell out exactly how industry interests will
be met in the operation of marine conservation zones.
My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby
mentioned my legal background in referring to clause 229,
which is a standard repeal clause. As a lawyer, I will be
pedantic and dig into it a little. At first sight, the repeal
of any Act from the 18th century would appear to be a
necessary tidying up. However, the Scottish Fishermen’s
Federation, having taken legal advice, has come to the
strong view that the White Herring Fisheries Act 1771
should be retained. In its view, it gives fundamental
rights to fishermen: the right to fish and various others.
I got myself a copy of the statute, or the bits of it that
are still in force, and—this is where I get pedantic—
compared it with an Act of the old Scottish Parliament:
the Fisheries Act 1705. The old Scottish Acts were
fascinating in the way they linked in with the ordinary
workers and common people. In the 15th and 16th centuries,
those that related to the masses started off with the
wonderful expression: “For the safety and favour of the
puir folks that labours the ground”. The 1705 Act does
not use those words, but it is interesting to read the first
sentence:
“Our Sovereign Lady and the Estates of Parliament taking to
consideration the great and many advantages that may arise to
this Nation by encouraging the Salmond White and Herring
fishings they being not only a natural and certain fund to advance
the trade and increase the wealth thereof but also a true and
ready way to breed seamen and set many poor and idle to work”.
That sounds like a piece of legislation from the 1980s.
[Laughter.] Interestingly, the same justification, using
different language, appears in the 1771 UK statute, but it
is limited to the white herring fisheries. I checked, as far as
I could, to see whether the 1705 Act was still in force, and
I was told by the Library—the information also appears
on the UK statute law database—that it is.
I am not sure whether that complicates matters or
makes things easier. However, as there is to be Scottish
legislation, it may be appropriate for the Scottish Parliament,
if it so chooses, to repeal the 1705 Act. The old Scottish
Acts have rules that do not apply in the UK. For
example, an Act that is obsolete can be put through a
process called desuetude, which effectively repeals it.
That needs the authority of the courts, but it can be
done. I suspect that the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation
is making the same appeal to the Scottish Parliament
that it is making to me and to others, but it is unlikely
that the Scottish Parliament will want to repeal the 1705
Act. That may lead to a situation whereby fishermen
north of the border have a statutory right to fish, to
land their boats on the shore and all the other rights
that the Act gives to fishermen, whereas fishermen in
the rest of the UK will not have that right because the
1771 Act has been repealed. That may be a bit more of
a grievance for the fishermen in Hastings, for example,
than to those north of the border.
I hope that the Secretary of State will try to clarify
the situation. Those two Acts are still in force, and
because his legislation does not attempt to repeal the
1705 Act we will be left with a different set of rules on
either side of the border.
8pm
Andrew George: I beg to move amendments 18, 23
and 42—